Agreed, but neither is the notion that strikeouts are so bad. Maybe a better analogy would be Grounded Into Double Plays (killed offensive chances) or poor defensive play. I think he's looking for players like Brett Hull, Robitaille, Gartner, Mogilny, Nash, Kovalchuk, etc... players who put up big goal numbers, but whose playmaking and defense aren't great. Perhaps the closest type in baseball terms would be a power hitter hits lots of homers and drives in runs, but who doesn't get on base that much or play very good defense (e.g. Jim Rice, Don Baylor, Cecil Fielder, Sammy Sosa, Bobby Bonilla, etc.).

I guess the equivalent is scoring a lot of points but being on the ice for many even strength goals against.

anybody have a list of the Even Strength goals against in a career?

Actually, no. Babe Ruth does not have the most career strikeouts. He is currently #78 on the all-time list with 1330 over 22 years (about 60/yr avg, 93 tops). Reggie Jackson is #1 with almost 2x - 2597 over 21 years (about 123/yr).

A better equivalent for Babe Ruth would be a Vezina winning Goalie ditching the pads after 5 years and going on to score 700+ goals. Most people just don't appreciate how phenominal the Babe was - they just see the John Goodman like physique and assume he was just a big slow not-too-athletic guy. He spent his first 4+ seasons as a pitcher and still holds the 12th highest winning %-age (min 100 decisions) of all time - 94W 46L .671 w/ a 2.28 ERA. He very well might have made the HOF as a pitcher if he didn't also have the phenominal bat.

Yeah, The Babe really has no comparison IMO. Barry Bonds isn't even close to the league that Ruth was. Nobody has ever dominated so completely a game in all manners as Ruth did baseball. As kdb said, it would have basicly been like Wayne Gretzky winning a Vezina and being a great goalie for the first part of his career then going on to do what he did. The Babe was hitting 60 homers when other top power hitters in the league could only dream of hitting 30.

I too take exception with the degredation of Babe Ruth. No one compares to Ruth as a batsman. He is first in all-time Slugging Average (which measures the quality of hits) with a .690 Slugging Average to Ted Williams .634 SLG. Ruth is second all-time a .474 On-Base Average to Ted William's .482 OBA.

As for hockey, you have presented great statistics pnep, thank you. It would be interesting to see how Bobby Orr, Jean Beliveau and Gordie Howe's even-strength goal differntial stacked up, but I don't think they kept statistics that completely in their times.

Babe Ruth had 2062 walks and only 1330 Strike outs. Using his Strikeout total as a mark against him is mental. In every one of his full seasons as a Slugger he had far, far more walks than stikeouts. Like an average of 125 walks to 70 strikeouts. For a Slugger who got 45-60 Homeruns every year to have so few Stikrouts and so many walks indicates great bat control and strike zone management. Perhaps Reggie Jackson is the type of player you wish to allude to as having a weakness in taking too many strikeouts but the Babe is not a good example. He was great at everything. He was stellar on defence until late in his career due to having the best outfield arm in baseball. He was aggresive on the bases. Until later in his career he could be considered an excellent baserunner. He may have been a bit fat but so what it took little from his game offensively or defensively. He is the only baseball player that could fall into the Gretzky category as being obscenely better than anyone else. He was a true five tool player that had no weaknesses. The only comparable Hockey player was Orr who was peerless defewnsively and won 2 Art Ross as a Defenceman. But he never played goalie and Ruth was a top pitcher.

To use Ruth as an example of a player with a significant weakness is pretty poor. Ruth can only be used as an example of greatness.

Gretzky was on the ice for over 500 more goals for than against. One of the best career marks ever. Lemieux? Not so good.

I'm taking the high road with you again, reckster.

If you were a glass half full guy, you could say that there was a subtle Ruth-$99 comparison I was making (its true he is the Ruth of hockey). Instead you want to bring up what I overlooked - ?

How about the only player to top more than once the evens strength goals against list for his position in his prime. I mean look at the 3 years $99 is on top of the list for at Centre. Those are prime prime years. Lemieux in 85 you can expect or Sakic in 89,90 (theyre young, their teams suck).

And you know that many of the 2300 ESGF were scored at the end of 4-1 games potting a couple or assisting in a meaningless way.

Come on - give him a break and stop dragging him into every discussion.

If you were a glass half full guy, you could say that there was a subtle Ruth-$99 comparison I was making (its true he is the Ruth of hockey). Instead you want to bring up what I overlooked - ?

How about the only player to top more than once the evens strength goals against list for his position in his prime. I mean look at the 3 years $99 is on top of the list for at Centre. Those are prime prime years. Lemieux in 85 you can expect or Sakic in 89,90 (theyre young, their teams suck).

And you know that many of the 2300 ESGF were scored at the end of 4-1 games potting a couple or assisting in a meaningless way.

Come on - give him a break and stop dragging him into every discussion.

Well chooch, you need to look at the big picture. Gretzky was putting in more icetime in his prime than most other forwards, so obviously there`s going to be more goals both for and against when he`s on the ice than others. The key is making sure the goals for outnumber the goals against. Yes, Gretzky is the only centre on the list three times; those three times are also the only three + seasons on that list as well.

So Lemieux was young on a team that sucked, well in NY Gretzky was old on a team that sucked, yet you love bringing up his minus seasons there. Can`t have it both ways. At least Gretzky never had a mark as bad as -35.

Gretzky scored his points in meaningless blowouts? Haven`t we been through this about.. oh a hundred times before. Please provide proof if you`re going to keep beating that horse. What about Mario`s last game in `93, racking up 5 goals in a blowout against the last-place Rangers? Or his 5 goals in 5 different ways against a weak Devil team; one of those titanic 8-6 East defensive battles.

Why do I always bring up Lemieux? Hey, it`s not as if I`ve started a "What least impressed you about Mario?" thread.

Well chooch, you need to look at the big picture. Gretzky was putting in more icetime in his prime than most other forwards, so obviously there`s going to be more goals both for and against when he`s on the ice than others. The key is making sure the goals for outnumber the goals against. Yes, Gretzky is the only centre on the list three times; those three times are also the only three + seasons on that list as well.

So Lemieux was young on a team that sucked, well in NY Gretzky was old on a team that sucked, yet you love bringing up his minus seasons there. Can`t have it both ways. At least Gretzky never had a mark as bad as -35.

Gretzky scored his points in meaningless blowouts? Haven`t we been through this about.. oh a hundred times before. Please provide proof if you`re going to keep beating that horse. What about Mario`s last game in `93, racking up 5 goals in a blowout against the last-place Rangers? Or his 5 goals in 5 different ways against a weak Devil team; one of those titanic 8-6 East defensive battles.

Why do I always bring up Lemieux? Hey, it`s not as if I`ve started a "What least impressed you about Mario?" thread.

Let me say first of all I have a great deal of respect for US$99 as you well know.

But I am very troubled to read your last comment. Very troubled.

Let me say this: I'd be the first to post a thread like that on Mario if I thought he was getting a free ride. But after getting cancer and coming back to win the Ross in the same season and still getting criticised for his attitude and lack of love for hockey etc etc . i dont think you need me to post that - you just gotta listen to the Cherry's every day.

As for your "arguments"....

You want proof about blowouts, you provide proof about ice time!

btw its defence that wins Cups not a bigger + than a - or whatever you said.

Yeah, The Babe really has no comparison IMO. Barry Bonds isn't even close to the league that Ruth was. Nobody has ever dominated so completely a game in all manners as Ruth did baseball. As kdb said, it would have basicly been like Wayne Gretzky winning a Vezina and being a great goalie for the first part of his career then going on to do what he did. The Babe was hitting 60 homers when other top power hitters in the league could only dream of hitting 30.

Some of the best other players were also banned while Ruth played. That would be like banning all europeans and french canadiens when gretz played. Obviously Ruth was a great, great player, but his numbers would have been weakened if he played against the likes of Paige, and his numbers wouldn't look as good comparitively when compared to somebody like Gibson. Unfortunatly, we will never know how different it would have been, a damn shame if you ask me. At the same time, Basbeall wouldn't have the same history, and a guy like Jackie Robinson would probably be unknown.